Some people here seem to have a false picture of how language works. Individual words do not have meanings. Not to a human interpreter anyway. Sentences used in actual contexts have meanings (unless a single word is uttered as an elliptical sentence). The "meanings" of words, as found in dictionaries, are simply abstractions from occasions of use. The idea that individual words have meanings hasn't been current in philosophy or linguistics for about 50 years. Also, the idea of St. Augustine that children learn the meaning of words by associating sounds that they hear with particular objects that they observe is now also considered rather dubious.
I think it's great that goolge is putting their resources behind this and I'm sure improvements in MT will be the result. What we can't expect though is perfect machine translations. Computers translate on the basis of syntax and semantic correspondance between words in the two languages. What's missing from the software is an understanding of context. I think google's efforts should help here. Training the software should be able it determine that a word is likely to have a particular value/meaning on the basis, for example, of certain words surrounding it (i.e. in previous and subsequent sentences). Current software seems only to translate at a per sentence level -- thus the lack of coherence in translated paragraphs. What google can't do though is solve in reference to non-textual context, for example: the character of the writer, when the text was written, for whom, purpose of the text, etc. So much of "meaning" for us humans is also the affect or force that a text has on us -- how it makes us feel -- and writers tweak what they say to bring about those particular effects. For this reason computers would find it difficult to account for stylistic variations that affect how a human would interpret. So much of meaning is implicated (i.e. not literal but tied to speaker/writer intentions) and this is what easily gets lost in translation. Even humans find translating this stuff hard. As any translater will tell you there is no such thing as a perfect translation (the translator can understand the meaning in the original language but not when trying to think it in the other). BUt still, I'm really excited to see what google is going to be able to do.
but advertising. Think of the publicity Tiger Direct will get if they halt the product. They are turning the tables and benefiting from Apple's use of "Tiger."
Legal Affairs Committee 2005-04-13 Working Document on the patentability of the inventions controlled by computer (2002/0047 (COD)) Rapporteur: Michel Rocard the Council of Ministers finally adopted a joint position on the patentability of the inventions implemented by computer to allow that the debate in second reading is held. Five Member States voted while letting know in writing that they voted to resolve the procedure, but which they wished to see the text modified by the Parliament. Our dissension of the first turn was heard. This text is essential as well economically (a few tens of annual billion euros are concerned) that politically or philosophically: it is about the statute of the diffusion of the knowledge and the ideas in the company. It is a short, but bearing text on an extremely complex matter. For two years that it is in debate, it has clearly appeared that in the difficulty of finding solutions consensual, the dissensions on the definitions and the misunderstandings are much more significant than the dissensions on the bottom. I made draw up a note of precise and detailed analysis of the subject. It is long. At the time when I write this letter to you, I am not sure of being able to translate it into English. I however hope to give it to you to all in French and English. But in fact, for the debate without text from April 21 in Brussels, I prefer, before depositing my proposals for an amendment officially, to propose to you to think together on the problem which is posed to us, and of his intellectual treatment. Because in this short text, we have in fact only two problems serious, likely to nourish a conflict with the Commission and the Council: that of the delimitation of what is patentable and of what is not it, and interworking. If the Parliament and finally the Council follow the orientations that we propose to them, the problem of interworking will be regulated of this fact. It is thus necessary to start by dealing with the delimitation. Which is the question? It results from contradiction between the legal system and the inherited tradition on the one hand, and the needs for remuneration for the investments and safety for the large-scale industry supported by the recent drifts for the patentability in the United States, and to a lesser extent with the European Patent Office, on the other hand. All our legal systems, and especially Convention on the European patent signed in 1973 in Munich establish clearly that the software is not patentable (art 52.2. CBE). However there exists more than 150000 patents of this type in the United States, without legal base and about 50000 with the European Patent Office, at dubious legal base and unequally valid in front of our national laws. The striking down development of data processing has extended for twenty years with all the branches from our industries and our services. Beyond the professional uses, there is no more one object of everyday consumption which does not comprise integrated softwares: portable cars, telephones, televisions, video tape recorders, washing machines, orders of elevators, etc. All that is expensive to develop. It is normal, and desirable, that industry can patent the results of its investments to ensure remuneration and to protect them from it from the counterfeit and the unfair competition. The regulation of the physical processes implemented within the inventions is a very old problem: it took innumerable forms, mechanics or tires in particular. To develop of such regulations, patentable when they were themselves innovating in their realization, was extremely expensive. To replace by software, whose production and development cost is much weaker, an enormous economy represents. That led to their multiplication. But a software is of another nature. It is about the immaterial one. In fact, a software is the combination in an original work of one or more algorithms, i.e. a whole of mathematical formulas. However like said it Albert Einstein, a mathematical formula is not patentable. It is of the o
It's really hard to imagine what these secret features might be. M$ and Sony are about upping the graphics ante, not about incorporating voice recognition, three screens, body sensors or whatever new ideas Nintendo comes up with. Maybe if these features turn out to be a success in the marketplace -- unlikely if the DS is any indicator -- the other console makers would think about incorporating them. I figure Nintendo's secretness is just a way of building hype around the product.
"What percentage [of viewers] were young white men?.... The marketers -- the people who want to make sure they're reaching the right fragment with the right ad -- would love to know. But it's been getting hard to say."
As a member of that particular demographic I'd wager it's less than they think. I cancelled my cable a few years ago and barely watch TV at all anymore. Most of my friends don't watch as much TV as they used to either. My entertainment hours are mostly spent on gaming and movies. I get my news from the web (IMHO TV is a medium unsuited for news). I do rent TV shows on DVD now and again.
Us Canadians also remove our shoes before entering our homes. I knew it kept our floors cleaner and I, for one, am happy to learn that it has the added bonus of keeping us thin. That makes a lot of sense somehow. I think it's safe to say that this is the one "real" April Fool's day story we've all been waiting for.
This one was actually a bit funny because it doesn't try to fool you -- it doesn't make you wonder whether or not it is fake. The picture of the devices duct-taped together is what's funny.
My ideas are to increase the Wi-fi strength with an external antenna and perhaps alter the shell a bit to allow me to raise the screen for on-the-desk viewing.
The difference is a scrawled URL would be seen as promotion. That's why something like Grafedia works. If advertisers did start using Grafedia (www.grafedia.net), checks could be put into place to thwart them a la Craigslist (i.e. users who message and get an ad can report it; if enough do, it's taken offline). As the grafedia faq says:
"To a certain extent, though, grafedia is intended for an audience of insiders - those don't know about grafedia are not necessarily the target audience."
So feel free not get involved.
No, it's very smart. Either 1) the customer doesn't know that they could have got the item cheaper; 2) or customer spends a bunch of time browsing Dell's site (maybe finding a few more things to buy in the process) and gets that "I've-shopped-around-and-got-a-great-deal-feeling. " Less likely to shop at a competitor if you feel you've "cheated" Dell somehow. As if.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people here seem to have a false picture of how language works. Individual words do not have meanings. Not to a human interpreter anyway. Sentences used in actual contexts have meanings (unless a single word is uttered as an elliptical sentence). The "meanings" of words, as found in dictionaries, are simply abstractions from occasions of use. The idea that individual words have meanings hasn't been current in philosophy or linguistics for about 50 years. Also, the idea of St. Augustine that children learn the meaning of words by associating sounds that they hear with particular objects that they observe is now also considered rather dubious.
I think it's great that goolge is putting their resources behind this and I'm sure improvements in MT will be the result. What we can't expect though is perfect machine translations. Computers translate on the basis of syntax and semantic correspondance between words in the two languages. What's missing from the software is an understanding of context. I think google's efforts should help here. Training the software should be able it determine that a word is likely to have a particular value/meaning on the basis, for example, of certain words surrounding it (i.e. in previous and subsequent sentences). Current software seems only to translate at a per sentence level -- thus the lack of coherence in translated paragraphs. What google can't do though is solve in reference to non-textual context, for example: the character of the writer, when the text was written, for whom, purpose of the text, etc. So much of "meaning" for us humans is also the affect or force that a text has on us -- how it makes us feel -- and writers tweak what they say to bring about those particular effects. For this reason computers would find it difficult to account for stylistic variations that affect how a human would interpret. So much of meaning is implicated (i.e. not literal but tied to speaker/writer intentions) and this is what easily gets lost in translation. Even humans find translating this stuff hard. As any translater will tell you there is no such thing as a perfect translation (the translator can understand the meaning in the original language but not when trying to think it in the other). BUt still, I'm really excited to see what google is going to be able to do.
Yes anonymous internet use should be banned. Thank you for your insightful post Mr. Coward.
but advertising. Think of the publicity Tiger Direct will get if they halt the product. They are turning the tables and benefiting from Apple's use of "Tiger."
For those who want to show off...
how unbelievably geeky they are
Parent should receive +1 for redundancy.
Legal Affairs Committee 2005-04-13 Working Document on the patentability of the inventions controlled by computer (2002/0047 (COD)) Rapporteur: Michel Rocard the Council of Ministers finally adopted a joint position on the patentability of the inventions implemented by computer to allow that the debate in second reading is held. Five Member States voted while letting know in writing that they voted to resolve the procedure, but which they wished to see the text modified by the Parliament. Our dissension of the first turn was heard. This text is essential as well economically (a few tens of annual billion euros are concerned) that politically or philosophically: it is about the statute of the diffusion of the knowledge and the ideas in the company. It is a short, but bearing text on an extremely complex matter. For two years that it is in debate, it has clearly appeared that in the difficulty of finding solutions consensual, the dissensions on the definitions and the misunderstandings are much more significant than the dissensions on the bottom. I made draw up a note of precise and detailed analysis of the subject. It is long. At the time when I write this letter to you, I am not sure of being able to translate it into English. I however hope to give it to you to all in French and English. But in fact, for the debate without text from April 21 in Brussels, I prefer, before depositing my proposals for an amendment officially, to propose to you to think together on the problem which is posed to us, and of his intellectual treatment. Because in this short text, we have in fact only two problems serious, likely to nourish a conflict with the Commission and the Council: that of the delimitation of what is patentable and of what is not it, and interworking. If the Parliament and finally the Council follow the orientations that we propose to them, the problem of interworking will be regulated of this fact. It is thus necessary to start by dealing with the delimitation. Which is the question? It results from contradiction between the legal system and the inherited tradition on the one hand, and the needs for remuneration for the investments and safety for the large-scale industry supported by the recent drifts for the patentability in the United States, and to a lesser extent with the European Patent Office, on the other hand. All our legal systems, and especially Convention on the European patent signed in 1973 in Munich establish clearly that the software is not patentable (art 52.2. CBE). However there exists more than 150000 patents of this type in the United States, without legal base and about 50000 with the European Patent Office, at dubious legal base and unequally valid in front of our national laws. The striking down development of data processing has extended for twenty years with all the branches from our industries and our services. Beyond the professional uses, there is no more one object of everyday consumption which does not comprise integrated softwares: portable cars, telephones, televisions, video tape recorders, washing machines, orders of elevators, etc. All that is expensive to develop. It is normal, and desirable, that industry can patent the results of its investments to ensure remuneration and to protect them from it from the counterfeit and the unfair competition. The regulation of the physical processes implemented within the inventions is a very old problem: it took innumerable forms, mechanics or tires in particular. To develop of such regulations, patentable when they were themselves innovating in their realization, was extremely expensive. To replace by software, whose production and development cost is much weaker, an enormous economy represents. That led to their multiplication. But a software is of another nature. It is about the immaterial one. In fact, a software is the combination in an original work of one or more algorithms, i.e. a whole of mathematical formulas. However like said it Albert Einstein, a mathematical formula is not patentable. It is of the o
Anyone else think it a bit suspicious that the CEO's last name is Cook?
if the boat moved around. i'd take a pay cut to spend my offtime in the bahamas.
"expand its regional services to an international audience" Canada isn't the U.S. you know.
It's really hard to imagine what these secret features might be. M$ and Sony are about upping the graphics ante, not about incorporating voice recognition, three screens, body sensors or whatever new ideas Nintendo comes up with. Maybe if these features turn out to be a success in the marketplace -- unlikely if the DS is any indicator -- the other console makers would think about incorporating them. I figure Nintendo's secretness is just a way of building hype around the product.
"What percentage [of viewers] were young white men? .... The marketers -- the people who want to make sure they're reaching the right fragment with the right ad -- would love to know. But it's been getting hard to say."
As a member of that particular demographic I'd wager it's less than they think. I cancelled my cable a few years ago and barely watch TV at all anymore. Most of my friends don't watch as much TV as they used to either. My entertainment hours are mostly spent on gaming and movies. I get my news from the web (IMHO TV is a medium unsuited for news). I do rent TV shows on DVD now and again.
Sony demands "access codes" and sends fleet of AIBO machines to prevent further digging.
wouldn't any nonacoustic form of communication fall under this description?
Us Canadians also remove our shoes before entering our homes. I knew it kept our floors cleaner and I, for one, am happy to learn that it has the added bonus of keeping us thin. That makes a lot of sense somehow. I think it's safe to say that this is the one "real" April Fool's day story we've all been waiting for.
Only if you and everyone else stops wasting our time posting more complaints about the April Fool's jokes.
This one was actually a bit funny because it doesn't try to fool you -- it doesn't make you wonder whether or not it is fake. The picture of the devices duct-taped together is what's funny.
It won't seem so funny when you guys get sued.
So not worth it.
The difference is a scrawled URL would be seen as promotion. That's why something like Grafedia works. If advertisers did start using Grafedia (www.grafedia.net), checks could be put into place to thwart them a la Craigslist (i.e. users who message and get an ad can report it; if enough do, it's taken offline). As the grafedia faq says: "To a certain extent, though, grafedia is intended for an audience of insiders - those don't know about grafedia are not necessarily the target audience." So feel free not get involved.
More evidence that credit card signatures are useless.
But when your number's up...
Excel can't compute big numbers.
Want what exactly? Ask me again when they have a product.
No, it's very smart. Either 1) the customer doesn't know that they could have got the item cheaper; 2) or customer spends a bunch of time browsing Dell's site (maybe finding a few more things to buy in the process) and gets that "I've-shopped-around-and-got-a-great-deal-feeling. " Less likely to shop at a competitor if you feel you've "cheated" Dell somehow. As if.